Comment Log Display

I appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the Climate
Change Draft Scoping Plan.  It is an enormous task to identify the
most promising strategies to reduce our climate change impact while
maintaining quality of life and economic vitality as much as
possible.  I am writing to call your attention to the need to
improve three inter-related aspects of the Scoping Plan: health,
land use, and transportation.

Though I am by training a health psychologist, my work has
gradually evolved to require the collaboration of many disparate
disciplines.  My area of interest is physical activity, obesity,
and related chronic diseases, and my work has taught me the strong
connections of these factors to land use and transportation
policies.  There is much knowledge about these topics that can be
applied to reducing carbon emissions.

I would like to make two points.  First, the public health field
needs to be a major partner in climate change planning, because
there will be many health consequences of both climate change and
mitigation efforts.  Whether the health consequences are mostly
positive or mostly negative depends on the decisions made.  The
current draft plan focuses narrowly on air quality, but several
mitigation strategies could have major positive side effects on
physical activity, obesity, and chronic diseases.  Since Time
Magazine identified me as an "obesity warrior", I am compelled to
inform you that many health professionals believe obesity is the
leading health challenge of our time, and the public ranks
childhood obesity as the number one health issue for children. 
Thus, opportunities for win-win outcomes that benefit both climate
change and obesity should be given very high priority.

Second, the key opportunities for win-win strategies are to
dramatically increase goals for reductions in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) which will require changes in land use policies and
transportation investments.  As documented in the book "Growing
Cooler" from the Urban Land Institute, people living in walkable
(also known as smart growth) neighborhoods have 33% less VMT than
those living in suburbs.  Since most zoning and development
ordinances in California essentially outlaw new walkable
developments, there is a huge opportunity for local government
policy changes to contribute substantially to reducing carbon
emissions.

Zoning laws that favor or require walkable, bikeable developments,
along with increased investments in pedestrian and bicycling
facilities and traffic calming will also have numerous health
benefits.  Based on literature reviews, the Transportation
Research Board, Institute of Medicine, and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention have all concluded walkable communities are
associated with more physical activity and lower rates of obesity. 
How much of an effect can we expect?  Based on our own research
(see attached brief, paper submitted), adults living in walkable
neighborhoods walked 35-45 minutes more per week than those in
suburban neighborhoods, thus meeting the 30-minute per day
physical activity guidelines one more day per week.  Rates of
overweight were 3-8 percentage points lower among residents of
walkable neighborhoods.  These are meaningful differences that are
difficult to achieve by other means.  

Do people support walkable neighborhoods?  Based on a national
survey study we recently published, support is high and growing. 
Support for walkable neighborhoods was 44% in 2003 and 59% in 2005
after several studies were publicized showing the link between
sprawl and health.  Support was strong among all population
segments, except rural residents who do not want any kind of
development in their area.  Notably, support was similar among
conservatives, liberals, exercisers, and inactives.  People see a
lot of value in being able to walk many places they want to go.  I
imagine that support would be higher now that gas prices have
increased so much.  Though people are driving less due to current
gas prices, those living in the suburbs and far from their jobs
are forced to drive long distances.  Thus, zoning and development
policy changes are needed to stop the building of more sprawling
subdivisions.

The link with transportation policy is simple.  Less than 1% of
transportation funds are spent on pedestrian and cycling
facilities.  As a result, it is inconvenient and dangerous to bike
in most of California.  An improved pedestrian and cycling
infrastructure could lead to reduced carbon emissions through less
VMT.  The same investments will reduce injuries, increase physical
activity, and help control the obesity epidemic.  Another
win-win.

As I understand the Draft Scoping Plan it prposes only about 1.2%
reduction in carbon emissions from local government actions.  That
is hard to understand when there is vastly more potential for
carbon reductions through more aggresive land use and
transportation policy changes, which would also have major
positive effects on our leading health problems.  Public health
organizations recommend these changes, and the public supports
them. Thus, there are many strong reasons to propose much more
ambitious VMT, land use, and transportation goals.  Keep in mind
your decisions will affect public health just as directly as they
affect climate change, so please bring public health experts into
higher-level roles at CARB. 

I personally do not see how we are going to seriously reduce
carbon emissions if we allow subdivisions to continue to sprawl
into the countryside, ensuring people living there will have to
drive long distances to go anywhere.  Please contact me if I can
be of any service.

James Sallis, PhD
Professor of Psychology, SDSU
Director, Active Living Research
www.drjamessallis.sdsu.edu

References

Ewing R, Bartholomew K, Winkelman S, Walters J, Chen D.  2008. 
Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate
Change.  Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Chapman JE, Saelens BE, Bachman W.
2006.  Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between
neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass
index, and air quality.  Journal of the American Planning
Association 72:75-87.

Handy S, Sallis JF, Weber D, Maibach E, Hollander M. 2008.  Is
support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence
from two national surveys.  Journal of the American Planning
Association 74:209-221.  

Heath GW,Brownson RC, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell KE, Ramsey LT and
the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. 2006.  The
effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies
and practices to increase physical activity: A systematic review.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3:S55–S76.

Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Howze EH, Powell KE,
Stone EJ, Rajab MW, Corso P. 2002. The effectiveness of
interventions to increase physical activity: A systematic review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22(4S) 67-72.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/pa-ajpmevrev.pdf.

Transportation Research Board Special Report 282. 2005. Does the
built environment influence physical activity? Examining the
evidence. Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine
Summary Report. The National Academies Press.

Original File Name: NQLS results flyer 020808.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-07-31 13:01:07